Oh DU
A president presides over an invasive surveillance program. A whistleblower leaks information about it. The program exists, as we already knew. The documents leaked provide additional information, some of it unknown beforehand.
In considering whether the program is necessary, useful or legal I ask you this:
What difference does it make whether you like or trust either the president or the whistleblower?
Am I wrong to think the answer "lots" is an answer people should be ashamed to give? You'd find yourself pouncing on lies on a dude's resume while in the next breath you justify lies an administration official told to Congress. You'd have nothing to say about the program itself, just the personalities involved.
Exaggerating a scoop, falsely burnishing your leaker heroism - these are acts that can be readily discovered to the public. The same is not true of the leaked documents, or the nature of the surveillance program.
= new reply since forum marked as read
That is a novel attack
Oh and go read this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaganda-prism
The last thing we need is a bunch of nosy investigative journalists telling us things we'd rather not think about. They're the problem. Off with their heads! No news is good news!!! 
USA! USA! USA!
Please see this post by Greenwald regarding claims that his story is inaccurate:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaganda-prism
Here is a relevant excerpt -- although the whole piece is well worth reading:
.
The Guardian has not revised any of our article and, to my knowledge, has no intention to do so. That's because we did not claim that the NSA document alleging direct collection from the servers was true; we reported - accurately - that the NSA document claims that the program allows direct collection from the companies' servers. Before publishing, we went to the internet companies named in the documents and asked about these claims. When they denied it, we purposely presented the story as one of a major discrepancy between what the NSA document claims and what the internet companies claim
From Greenwald:
"Democratic partisans have raised questions about only one of the stories - the only one that happened to be also published by the Washington Post (and presumably vetted by multiple Post editors and journalists) - in order to claim that an alleged inaccuracy in it means our journalism in general is discredited.
They are wrong. Our story was not inaccurate. The Washington Post revised parts of its article, but its reporter, Bart Gellman, stands by its core claims ("From their workstations anywhere in the world, government employees cleared for PRISM access may 'task' the system and receive results from an Internet company without further interaction with the company's staff" .
The Guardian has not revised any of our articles and, to my knowledge, has no intention to do so. That's because we did not claim that the NSA document alleging direct collection from the servers was true; we reported - accurately - that the NSA document claims that the program allows direct collection from the companies' servers. Before publishing, we went to the internet companies named in the documents and asked about these claims. When they denied it, we purposely presented the story as one of a major discrepancy between what the NSA document claims and what the internet companies claim"
and here's a little kick for truth:
Congress voted to fund the building of that,...but not this:
Priorities, jpgray.
....priorities....
